Jeyaselvan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.09.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.11945 of 2025 1.Jeyaselvan 2.Sasikala @ Alphonsa Sasikala 3.Jesu Antony ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.7 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Ka.Ramakrishnan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.7 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.7 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd petitioner went to Mumbai and approached the defacto complainant's principal and her mother stating that petitioners are doing Ral Estate business at a high level and requested him to purchase the property at Pappankulam Village to an extent of 2.75 Acre and fixed sale value of Rs.8.5 Lakhs/- and to pay the said amounts as installments in the bank account of 3rd petitioner and received Rs.8.35 Lakhs/- in bank account. On 30.12.2014 they have received Rs.15,000/- and registered the document for the said land as D.No.2814/2014 before the Nanguneri SRO for the properties in S.No.967, 962/2, 1090/2 situated at Pappankulam Village, Tirunelveli District in favour of the principal of the defacto complainant. The petitioners assured to arrange compound wall for the said land.

The defacto complainant applied before the Tahsildar to survey and fix boundary. But the application was dismissed stating that the said survey numbers are situated at different places and the survey number 1090/2 land was already alienated by them and no land is available in that survey number.

was not stated and sold the same along with others without mentioning total extent. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.

5. This Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners till 22.09.2025 on a condition to deposit Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only). Today, ie., on 22.09.2025, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they could not deposit the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. 3/5

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.09.2025 TMG TO 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

S.SRIMATHY, J.

TMG

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11945 of 2025 Date : 22.09.2025 5/5